THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER
A Timeline of Events Surrounding the Radical Right's Attempt to Subvert American Democracy
Written and Compiled by Black Max
December 2006, Week Two
Page Two
Due to size considerations, this page has been divided into subpages.
Use the menu below to navigate the week's contents.
SubMenu
- December 12: Bush has apparently decided to go forward with what some describe as the "go long" approach towards quelling violence in Iraq -- calling up as many as 20,000 more troops to go to Iraq, particularly towards Baghdad.
Iraq war and occupation
Bush has not announced any decision, and sources say he will not until after the new year begin, but he has asked his staff to work out the details. Bush has all but completed his highly marketed "listening tour," ostensibly designed to give Bush the opportunity to listen to differing viewpoints on the war as a prelude to a major policy change, but more pragmatically to give Bush cover from the unpalatable characterizations and recommendations by the Iraq Study Group. Bush will meet on December 14 with senior defense officials at the Pentagon. Today Bush meets with General John Abizaid, the US commander of military forces in the Middle East, and General George Casey, the top general in Iraq, along with other senior military officers. Both want more armored vehicles, body armor, and other critical equipment. Both urge Bush to pour much more money into equipment for Iraqi security forces. Abizaid has repeatedly said that sending more troops into Iraq for whatever reason would accomplish little besides putting more soldiers' lives at risk. But the message from everyone Bush has met with is that any idea of withdrawing troops from Iraq by early 2008, as the Iraq Study Group recommended, is a poor one, because Iraqis will not be ready to assume control of their country. According to a defense official familiar with the content of the meetings, Bush is delaying making public his new Iraq policy plan in part to allow officials to work out the funding. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that the delay in unveiling the new policy is unacceptable. "It has been six weeks since the American people demanded change in Iraq," he says. "In that time Iraq has descended further toward all-out civil war and all the president has done is fire Donald Rumsfeld and conduct a listening tour. Talking to the same people he should have talked to four years ago does not relieve the president of the need to demonstrate leadership and change his policy now." - According to CNN reporter John King, Bush is planning to send perhaps 20,000 more troops to Iraq, in a policy shift that takes the same direction as advocated by Senator John McCain. Such a troop increase would supposedly be strictly for the short term, in an attempt to secure the chaotic capital city of Baghdad and its surrounding environs. King reports that the White House has postponed the announcement of the policy shift to January because Bush "has asked for more advice about" how he could send 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and administration officials "need more time to put all that on the table." King says the White House sees a political benefit to delaying the announcement. "If you are going to disagree with the Iraq Study Group and not accept its major recommendations, then let some time go by, let the American people forget about that a little bit" and "buy some time for critics" to attack the ISG, King reports. (AP/Yahoo! News, CNN/Think Progress)
- December 12: In what is almost the last undecided House race, Texas's 23rd District, Democrat Ciro Rodriguez defeats incumbent Republican Henry Bonilla in a runoff election.
Congressional Democrats
Rodriguez, widely acknowledged as having the makings of an excellent lawmaker but an admittedly poor campaigner, says, "I think [it was] the trend throughout the country. I think they're fed up...they elect us to go out there and solve problems, not create any more." Rodriguez won the runoff by a solid 54-46 margin. The 23rd District was redrawn in October after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the district's boundaries were unconstitutional. As a result, the city of Laredo was no longer split between two districts, and the 23rd added a significant number of Hispanic voters. The 2003 reconfiguration of the district unconstitutionally diluted minority voters by splitting Laredo, a city with a large Hispanic majority, into the two districts. Both Bonilla and Rodriguez are Mexican-Americans, but the trend in 2006 has shown Hispanics largely voting Democrat. In the final days of the runoff campaign, an increasingly desperate Bonilla, trying to combat his slide in the polls, Bonilla launched a negative TV ad over the final days of the campaign attempting to link Rodriguez to terrorists. The move backfired, alienating voters. Adding Bonilla's staunch defense of indicted Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and, as San Antonio Express-News columnist Jaime Castillo writes, "Bonilla wound up looking like another tone-deaf Republican who would rather stick by controversial friends and policies rather than bend to public sentiment." (KSAT-TV, San Antonio Express-News) - December 12: Some observers on both sides of the aisle believe that Bush officials are planning to enact what former security advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski calls a "blame and run" strategy -- pin the blame for the lack of progress in Iraq on the tottering government of Nouri al-Maliki.
Iraq war and occupation
The impulse to blame the al-Maliki government may be one of the only things, besides a marketing slogan, that Bush and his officials take from the recently released Iraq Study Group report, which calls on Bush to withhold US assistance from Baghdad unless it makes progress on fulfilling a long list of US-imposed "milestones." "You could call it 'blame and run,' says Bzrezinski. "It is based on a pervasive illusion that there is such a thing as an Iraqi government. The more we blame it for doing things it cannot do, the more impotent it will become. 'Blame and run' is self-fulfilling." Strobe Talbott, head of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, agrees. In a speech last week, Talbott criticized the view that Baghdad could be pressed to make changes such as disarming the sectarian militias by threatening to withhold military, political or economic aid. The ISG report states that Baghdad must prove that it "deserves future aid." Talbott disagrees. "The logic of that pressure tactic -- that is, why it should work with the Iraqis -- is not clear, since most of them want us out [of Iraq]. The logic on our own side, however, is very clear indeed: having pre-emptively invaded their country, let's pre-emptively blame them for the mess we've made of it." But the idea isn't restricted to just Bush supporters. Democratic senator Barack Obama, who opposed the invasionj from the outset, implied in a recent speech that Baghdad is suffering from welfare dependency. "No more coddling, no more equivocation," he said. "Our best hope for success is to pressure the Iraqi leadership to finally come to a political agreement between the warring factions that can create some sense of stability in the country and bring this conflict under control." Obama's fellow Senate Democrat, Hillary Clinton, says that America's credibility is being held hostage by the Iraqi government. "We need to press consistently, privately and publicly the Iraqis to become serious about achieving an internal reconciliation and political solution, and present real consequences for their failing to do so," she said. - Many who have actually spent time in Iraq have a different view. (Of the ten principals of the ISG, only one, former Democratic senator Charles Robb, has any direct experience outside of the Green Zone.) They worry that blaming Baghdad for lack of progress will reduce the Iraqi government's capacity to act even further. "The more we blame the Iraqis, the less political space Mr Maliki will have to act," says a former senior administration official. "He cannot be seen to be implementing a long shopping list of items out of Washington." (Financial Times)
- December 12: World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, formerly the deputy secretary of defense and the architect of the US invasion of Iraq, is making many of the same mistakes at the World Bank as he did at Defense, larding his staff with inexperienced political ideologues and driving away seasoned managers.
Partisan Bush appointees
Half of the bank's 29 highest-level executives have departed since Wolfowitz took office in June 2005. Among them is Christiaan Poortman, vice president for the Middle East and a 30-year World Bank veteran, who left in September after resisting pressure to speed up the pace of lending and adding staff in Iraq. "It was very sad to see someone of Mr. Poortman's caliber leaving," says Eckhard Deutscher, one of 24 executive directors who oversee the management of the Washington-based lender. "The bank needs to be very careful not to lose too much of its human capital." An increasing number of nations are expressing reluctance to contribute to the World Bank because of their unhappiness with Wolfowitz. The exodus is damaging the world's leading poverty-fighting institution, which provided $23.6 billion last year for projects such as schools and clinics, say directors and outside observers. - While Wolfowitz's predecessor, James Wolfensohn, replaced a number of senior managers as well, the difference is, according to former World Bank economist Devesh Kapur, that Wolfowitz's appointees are short on expertise and long on political connections. New managers include counselor to the president Robin Cleveland, who as associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget helped secure congressional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kevin Kellems, a former spokesman for Vice President Dick Cheney, was named director of external strategy. Suzanne Rich Folsom, a lawyer who joined in 2003 and is the bank's chief corruption-fighter, is married to George Folsom, who was principal deputy director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office and served as president of the International Republican Institute. Wolfowitz "has placed considerably more trust in a small group of outsiders from the Republican Party than in the seasoned experts in the bank," says Alison Cave, head of the World Bank staff association, which represents more than 13,000 employees. "The changes under Wolfowitz are unprecedented in the calculated manner in which inexperienced or ideological replacements are being placed in senior positions," says Kapur. Among those who left the bank after disagreements with Wolfowitz are Roberto Danino, general counsel and a former prime minister of Peru; Ian Goldin, vice president for external affairs; and Gobind Nankani, vice president for Africa. Poortman, the Mideast chief, resigned rather than accept an assignment in Kazakhstan.
- Bush's nomination of Wolfowitz last year raised concern among employees that he would use his position to promote US Iraq policies, which indeed he has done. His plan to step up activities in Baghdad "exposes him to charges of attempting to provide political cover for the White House," says Nancy Birdsall, a former director of the bank's policy research department and president of the Washington-based Center for Global Development. (Bloomberg)
- December 12: Former Marine colonel Oliver North, who disgraced himself by running the illegal rogue arms deals to supply the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and is now a flag-waving "uberpatriot" and commentator for Fox News, delivers a jokey bit for Fox's Hannity and Colmes talk show.
Conservative media slant
North is in the Iraqi city of Ramadi where he yuks it up about having a "pot shot" taken at his convoy by an apparent insurgent, who, according to North, had "apparently...been trained by the French, perhaps the French Girl Scouts or by one of your friends, Alan," referring to Fox's token "liberal," Alan Colmes. North, trying desperately to paint the insurgency as a group of incompetents merely good for a few laughs, and taking the usual swipes at liberals and the French, fails to inform Fox viewers of the context of his little incursion. Attacks on US troops are at their highest levels since the March 2003 invasions, and the number of US deaths is rapidly approaching 3,000. Worse, he failed to report that three soldiers who had just escorted North and his Fox crew into Ramadi were killed just days before his broadcast. One of the three dead is Major Megan McClung, the highest-ranking female US soldier to be killed in Iraq since the invasion. While real journalists often go out in Iraq without a military escort, North insisted that his precious hide be protected by a group of soldiers. McClurg had won praise from other journalists who she had helped escort through some of the most dangerous sections of Iraq. - North did mention McClurg's death, as well as the other two soldiers' deaths, in a December 8 installment of his newspaper column, "Winning the War," where he cited the deaths briefly before continuing to insist that the US is winning the war -- as he does in every column, hence the name -- and the deaths of those three soldiers somehow proves his assertions. As for Fox, it refused to report on McClurg's death, though many other media outlets, including CNN, reported extensively on the highest ranking woman to die in combat. Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News's Attytood reports, "I've searched Fox News Channel as a source on Nexis, and checked Google as well. I can't find any evidence that McClung or the circumstances of her death was ever mentioned on FNC (their Web site carried this AP story, which mentions McClung at the end in type that requires a magnifying glass). Meanwhile, Fox News tries to position itself as the troop-friendly network, with stories like North's and lots of greetings sent home from solidiers. (For the record, I have no problem with 'good news' stories from Iraq, as long as they're accurate.) But apparently Fox News is only friendly to troops who are still alive. Indeed, the appalling treatment of McClung...and her death is another piece in the broader puzzle. The right-wingers and their pajama-clad 'warbloggers' have been engaged in keyboard kombat against much of the media in Iraq, especially the Associated Press, which they claim is distorting the news and giving the world an inaccurate picture of our success in Iraq. ...Major McClung was a true hero of an American free press, risking and ultimately sacrificing her life to make sure that the US public could continue to get news from our military efforts in Iraq. She died seeking to help reporters like those from Fox News get a real fair and balanced picture of what was happening in Ramadi, and now Fox has both disgraced and diminished her sacrifice by giving out false information on attacks and then ignoring both the very fact, let alone the circumstances, of McClung's death."
- Bunch continues, "Here's something else that Fox didn't cover: McClung was buried [December 19] in Arlington National Cemetery. The story of her death but mainly her life -- energetic and outgoing, a gymnast and triathlete who created a marathon for the troops in Iraq -- is a compelling one that has been and should be recognized by real journalists, if not by the posers at Fox News. Megan McClung was a true patriot and a true Marine -- things that Ollie North cannot claim today. Where is the 'Semper Fi' in his willful TV ignoring of his comrade's death? The truth is that Oliver North has been forgiven for many things on his life, including a central role in a scandalous assault on the US Constitution and an overturned felony conviction that only slowed his march to a life of affluent comfort as a right-wing pundit. But now, Lt. Col. Oliver North has left behind a fellow Marine, in the consciousness of her country, where she belongs. And that is truly unforgivable."
- The liberal news site Buzzflash is even more unforgiving: "Well, the swaggering, lying Ollie North was sent by the FOX propaganda network to Iraq. His assignment was to be a cheerleader for the debacle, echoing the Bushevik denial of reality. ...North boasted about how well things were going in the city of Ramadi. Forget for the moment that death and violence are on the rise in Iraq, North unforgivably didn't mention that just a few days earlier three of his military escorts were killed by a roadside bomb. One of the dead included the highest ranking female soldier to lose her life in Iraq as of that date, Maj. Megan McClung. The right wingers don't like to mention GIs dying in Iraq -- and they particularly don't like to acknowledge vibrant, attractive white blonde women who get killed. It would get in the way of their self-serving tinhorn propaganda. Maj. McClung was buried in Arlington Cemetery not long after North was joking about his adventures in Ramadi on FOX -- and trying to perpetuate the FOX lies about the devastation of the Iraq War. ...McClung was a fellow Marine. North owed her much more than earning his big FOX salary by fibbing and playing for laughs. North's behavior is indicative of the insensitivity and brazen opportunism of the GOP war hawks. Call it hypocrisy, but make sure you also call it unmanly and revolting." (Attytood [link to video], Buzzflash)
- December 12: Soy products are making our children homosexual, says columnist Jim Rutz of the extremist conservative Web site World Net Daily, in a column that probably should be -- but isn't -- published as satire.
Conservative hate speech and intolerance
Rutz, who claims to eat only organic health foods, writes, "Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore." Rutz says that soy-based foods such as tofu contain "substantial quantities of estrogens. Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your 'female side,' physically and mentally." There's just enough fact in Rutz's rantings to make them believable to some: "In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen. If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal." Rutz does not cite the research he claims to use, and no reputable scientist has published anything approaching Rutz's hysteria-based conclusions. - But let Rutz speak for himself as he departs the world of fringe science and enters the world of paranoid fantasy: "Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because 'I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual.' No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them. Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal."
- Rutz goes on to blame soy products for causing heart problems and obesity in heavy soy consumers, and continues to discuss "research" that he never cites for a range of horrific effects of soy products, including "testicular atrophy, infertility...uterus hypertrophy (enlargement)...leukemia in children...[and] breast cancer" (World Net Daily)
- December 13: Saudi Arabia warns that it may begin providing financial aid to Iraqi Sunnis in any fighting against Iraq's Shi'ite militias if the US pulls its troops out of Iraq.
Iraq war and occupation
(See previous entries on this page about Saudi citizens already funding Iraqi militants.) Saudi Arabia is a predominantly Sunni country. The White House denies that the Sauds would do any such thing. "That's not Saudi government policy," says press secretary Tony Snow; the Sauds also deny the story. Previously, Saudi Arabian officials had promised US officials that it would not intervene to assist the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, but Saudi officials now say that promise might not hold if US troops leave Iraq. The Bush administration has repeatedly said there are no plans for the immediate pullout of US troops. According to a New York Times report, Saudi King Abdullah issued the warning to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Cheney's visit to Riyadh. The message also emphasized the kingdom's displeasure with proposed talks between the US government and Iran. Major General William Caldwell, the main military spokesman in Iraq, says, "I don't think that came from the government of Saudi Arabia. And what the government of Saudi Arabia said was that was not an official position of their government and that the person who spoke, spoke out of place and has since then been removed from his position even." Rich private Saudi citizens are already funnelling money to Sunni insurgents in Iraq, through charitable donations and by trucks carrying pilgrims and their luggage between the two countries. In turn, Iran is believed to be providing military and financial support to the Shi'ites in Iraq. Saudi Arabia has expressed concern that once US troops leave Iraq that the controlling Shi'ite majority could massacre the Sunni minority, believed to comprise a large faction of the deadly insurgency that has claimed thousands of Iraqi civilian and US military lives. Saudi Arabia's fears seems to have been exacerbated by growing discussions in Washington aimed at accelerating the timeframe for bringing troops home. (New York Times/AP/Yahoo! News) - December 13: A summary of a previously classified Pentagon report concludes that the three terrorism suspects held for years without charge at a Charleston, South Carolina Naval brig were subjected to months of isolation and other unacceptable conditions, and warns that the three's "unique" solitary confinement may violate US detention standards.
Terrorism detainees and "enemy combatants"
The report says that interrogators attempted to deprive one detainee, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari citizen and former student in Peoria, Illinoi, of sleep and religious comfort by taking away his Koran, warm food, mattresses and pillow as part of an interrogation plan approved by the high-level Joint Forces Command. Interrogators also prevented the International Committee of the Red Cross from visiting at least one detainee. The report goes on to note evidence of other unspecified, unauthorized interrogation techniques. The report by the Navy's inspector general was presented to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in May 2004 and was declassified in 2005. It was the first to raise the question of mistreatment of alleged enemy combatants inside the United States. Its details about conditions at the Navy brig in 2004 could prove critical to the fate of two of the "enemy combatant" detainees who spent years in the prison: Al-Marri, the only one of the three who remains there and is facing the prospect of a special military trial, and Jose Padilla, a Brooklyn-born US citizen now facing criminal charges in Miami. - Attorneys for Padilla have argued in recent court filings that any abusive interrogation methods used on their client may mean that his statements to government agents were coerced and, therefore, inadmissible in his trial. He is accused of engaging in a conspiracy to kill US citizens and provide material support to terrorists abroad. Padilla's attorneys, who have subpoenaed the deputy inspector general, Brigadier General Daryl Thiessen, who made the findings, say that Padilla spent 1,307 days in a 9-by-7-foot cell in an isolated unit, was often chained to the ground for hours by his wrists and torso, and was kept awake at night by guards using bright lights and loud noises. Government prosecutors are trying to block the subpoena, calling the allegations "meritless" and "sensationalist," and citing the fact that Padilla was given dental surgery as evidence of the government's concern for his well-being. Al-Marri remains at the brig awaiting an appeals court ruling on whether he will be tried in a US court or by a military commission, as the government requested last month. Al-Marri sued the government last year over the conditions of his confinement, alleging that for 16 months in 2003 and 2004, he had been barred from contact with anyone but guards delivering food, causing his mental state to deteriorate.
- Thiessen wrote in his summary that the Joint Forces Command had approved that "one detainee in Charleston has Koran, mattress, and pillow removed and is fed cold MRES as part of interrogation plan." He also noted concerns about isolation: "Limited number and unique status of detainees in Charleston precludes interaction with other detainees. Argument could be made that this constitutes isolation." Extended solitary confinement is often considered a form of inhumane treatment. In 2003, Rumsfeld specified the use of isolation as an interrogation tactic, but he cautioned that its use required detailed plans and approvals from superiors for the length of time. His memo warned that use of isolation for more than 30 days was atypical, and that nations that consider detainees subject to prisoner-of-war protections may view this technique as "inconsistent with the requirements of Geneva [Article] III."
- "What you're describing confirms what we said in our complaint," says Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice and an attorney for Marri, when asked to review the summary findings. "There were periods of time when al-Marri felt he was losing his mind. He went months without hearing a human voice.... And these weren't rogue officers, but it was part of a deliberate violation of the laws of the US by the top levels of the administration." Pentagon spokesman J.D. Gordon says that although no abuse has been found to have taken place, policies have been changed to prevent abuse anyway. "The reviews have resulted in numerous recommendations which have been implemented and have improved our detention operations," he say. "The Department of Defense policy is clear: We treat detainees humanely." Gordon does not explain why so many "numerous recommendations" for change have been "implemented" if nothing wrong was found in the first place.
- Thiessen's report is part of a larger review by Vice Admiral Albert Church, then the Navy's inspector general. Rumsfeld ordered the wide-ranging military investigation to determine whether any interrogation policy for terrorism suspects had caused detainee abuse in US military detention facilities. The Church report presented to Congress in March 2005 concluded that there was no deliberate high-level policy that led to the numerous cases of mistreatment. Instead, it blamed inept leadership at low levels and confusion over changing interrogation rules. Church focused on the conditions for foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay. But the details of what Thiessen found in the Charleston brig were not revealed. When asked, high-ranking military officers asserted that the brig fared well in the review. "The brig here has a good record, and the people who run it are well trained," then-Secretary of the Navy Gordon England told reporters in 2004. A third prisoner at the brig, Yaser Hamdi, was released in 2004 after the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not hold him indefinitely without a trial, and after he agreed to US conditions that he go to Saudi Arabia and give up his US citizenship. (Washington Post)
- December 13: An anti-terrorism court in Pakistan drops all terrorism-related charges against Rashid Rauf, the British citizen who, according to US authorities, is the mastermind behind the UK terror plot to bomb a series of airplanes this summer.
Terrorism detainees and "enemy combatants"
Rauf still faces charges of fraud and possession of a fake passport, both of which will be pursued in a normal court. Rauf's lawyer told the press today that the prosecution had claimed Rauf was in possession of 29 bottles of the chemical hydrogen peroxide, which was meant to be used to blow up the passenger jets. "But they failed to produce any evidence to support the allegations," says lawyer Hasmat Habib. "This chemical is also used to heal wounds." At the time of his arrest in Pakistan this summer, US authorities described Rauf as the ringleader who was essentially running the plot by remote control from Pakistan. Authorities say they were able to track his phone calls back to London and wire transfers of money for the suicide bombers' plane tickets. Pakistani authorities arrested Rauf in cooperation with British authorities, saying he was found near the border with Afghanistan and had direct ties to al-Qaeda. (ABC News) - December 13: The Bush administration asks an appeals court to overrule a federal judge and allow the White House to keep secret any records of visitors to Vice President Dick Cheney's residence and office.
Secrecy of Bush administration
To make the visitor records public would be an "unprecedented intrusion into the daily operations of the vice presidency," the Justice Department argues in a brief to the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. The argument is in response to an October order by US district court judge Ricardo Urbina to release two years of White House visitor logs to the Washington Post, which is attempting to research the access lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff had on the White House. The Post wants to see Secret Service records for anyone visiting Cheney, his legal counsel, chief spokesman and other top aides and advisers. Urbina ruled against the government's primary argument, that the logs are protected by Cheney's right to executive privilege. A lawsuit over similar records revealed in September that Republican activists Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed -- key figures in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal -- landed more than 100 meetings inside the Bush White House, making it plain what the real reason is for attempting to keep the logs secret. (AP/Yahoo! News) - December 13: Democratic senator Tim Johnson is hospitalized in critical condition after suffering a brain seizure, sparking fears not only for his survival but for Democratic control of the Senate.
Congressional Democrats
If Johnson dies or is unable to perform his duties as a senator, South Dakota's governor Michael Rounds, a Republican, would most likely name a Republican to replace Johnson, creating a 50-50 split in the Senate and giving Republicans control of the chamber. Vice President Dick Cheney would cast any tie-breaking votes. After Johnson undergoes emergency brain surgery, the attending physician of the Capitol, Admiral John Eisold, says, "Senator Tim Johnson was found to have had an intracerebral bleed caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation. The senator is recovering without complication. ...It is premature to determine whether further surgery will be required or to assess any long-term prognosis." A congenital arteriovenous malformation means Johnson was born with a tangle of blood vessels, in this case in his brain. Johnson is taken to George Washington University Hospital with stroke-like symptoms after he verbally stumbled and seemed confused in a radio interview with reporters. The Senate historian's office says the only way there would be a vacancy to fill is if Johnson died or resigned, since even if incapacitated, he could remain in office. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the incoming speaker in the new, Democratic-majority House of Representatives, refuses to speculate on any possible changes, and incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who spends considerable time at Johnson's bedside, says that Johnson "looks great." - After the initial fright, Johnson is upgraded from his original condition of critical, and has shown slow but steady improvement, giving his family and friends new hope for his full recovery, and lessening the chance of his losing his Senate seat. There is no provision in the law to remove a senator from his position outside of criminal charges, and Johnson could retain his seat even if hospitalized for months. As stipulated by Senate rules, Johnson could retain his seat even if he is incapacitated, unable to vote, and not able to show up to work. (Reuters, CNN)
- December 13: Democratic senator Bill Nelson visits Syria to meet with Syrian president Bashar Assad.
Middle East peace process
Nelson says Assad is willing to help control the Iraq-Syria border. Nelson, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, meets with Assad even after the State Department said that it disapproved of his trip. The United States has limited diplomatic ties with Syria because of its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, which the US deems terrorist organizations, and Bush has repeatedly said he refuses to seek help from Damascus on Iraq until the Syrians curb that support and reduce their influence in Lebanon. "Assad clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate with the Americans and or the Iraqi army to be part of a solution" in Iraq, Nelson says following the meeting. The US says foreign fighters often enter Iraq across that boundary. Syrian officials have repeatedly indicated a willingness to engage the US in discussions about Iraq, which the Bush administration has treated with skepticism. Nelson said he views Assad's remarks as "a crack in the door for discussions to continue. I approach this with realism not optimism." Three other senators -- Democrats John Kerry and Christopher Dodd, and Republican Arlen Specter, have visits planned to Damascus as well. "We don't think that members of Congress ought to be going there," White House press secretary Tony Snow says, and adds that the United States continues to denounce Syria's meddling in Lebanon and its ties to terrorist groups. Specter says he ignored a request from Condoleezza Rice not to go to Syria: "I deferred to them a year ago, and I deferred to them last August," he says. "And if there were any signs the administrative policy [in the Middle East] was working, I'd defer to them again." Specter, who has visited Syria many times in the past, says it is past time to open diplomatic dialogues with both Syria and Iran. - The diplomatic push from Congress comes on the heels of a recommendation by the Iraq Study Group that the US engage Iran and Syria on the war in Iraq, a recommendation that Bush has rejected. Prior to heading to Damascus, Nelson met with top Israeli and Palestinian officials; in coming days, he plans to visit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iraq. Nelson will not visit Iran. He shrugs off suggestions that he is challenging Bush's authority by sidestepping administration policy that the US have no contact with Syrian officials. "I have a constitutional role as a member of Congress," Nelson says. (AP/Yahoo! News, AP/Yahoo! News)
- December 13: While Democrats are still split on how to handle the Iraq debacle, they seem to agree on one thing: Bush broke it and it's his responsibility to fix it.
Iraq war and occupation
When asked what the Democrats should do to fix Iraq, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, gives a pithy summation of many Democrats' feelings on the matter: "I never understand that question. You have a President that's in deep sh*t. He got us into the war, and all the reasons he gave have been proven invalid, and the whole electorate was so pissed off that they got rid of anyone they could have, and then they ask, 'What is the Democrats' solution?'" Many Congressional Democrats are reluctant to take on the issue too strongly, for fear that they will be tarred with what up till now has been a Republican-only scandal. "The question is, are you just going to fold up and leave regardless of the situation on the ground, or can you, through diplomacy, try and craft a more favorable exit?" asks likely presidential nominee Wesley Clark, the former military head of NATO and the prime negotiator of the Dayton Accords that brought peace to Kosovo. But unlike many Democrats, Clark opposes the idea of a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. He is joined by likely Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Hillary Clinton, who has fought for more body armor and supplies for the troops but has refused, like Clark, to endorse any timetable for withdrawal. On the Republican side, Senator John McCain has staked out his own position, apparently embraced by the Bush administration, of sending more troops to Iraq to secure the chaotic city of Baghdad. But it is likely that whoever ends up running for president for the Democrats will win in part because of his or her opposition to the war. "Certainly the Democratic Party in 2008, if this war is still going on, will have a fiercely anti-war candidate as its nominee, and that begins to exclude certain people who are assumed now to be favorites," says Jeffrey Laurenti, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. "And so there is a powerful incentive for finding some way to diffuse this and get this off the political agenda." - Like many other Democrats, Representative Jerrold Nadler believes that civil war in Iraq is a reality, and the only question is how many troops does the US allow to die in the struggle. "They are going to have this civil war and we can't prevent it, and I would rather have it that there are 2,800 American dead rather than 28,000 American dead," Nadler says. Nadler goes on to say that he wrestled with the moral implications of leaving for months before concluding that a quick withdrawal was the best option. "It's not a nice conclusion; it's not a happy conclusion. I reached a conclusion that we have so screwed up the situation that lots of people are going to die, and there is nothing we can do about it." Other House Democrats in favor of withdrawal have stressed the importance of not letting civil war engulf the greater region. Representative Anthony Weiner, for example, advocates moving American troops to the Iranian border to stem the flow of Shi'ite fighters entering the country, and also defending the Syrian border to prevent armaments from reaching the Sunni insurgents. The rest of the troops should then be sent to join the fight in Afghanistan or other areas where the military is understaffed. Weiner concedes that his plan, which he calls a variation of Representative John Murtha's withdrawal scenario, "is not ending the fight in the schoolyard, but sealing the schoolyard off so that it can't get much bigger." The problem is that sectarian warfare will develop into unmitigated genocide in mixed-population areas like Baghdad. "You'd see genocidal-style civil war," says Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "If you are in favor of withdrawal, I think you have to admit that." Rangel sums it up succinctly: "Ever since I was a kid, everyone was just praying for someone to break up the fight. And it's clear that we can't break up the fight. We have no clue of the Pandora's box that we opened up over there." (New York Observer, TPM Muckraker)
- December 13: The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the US Geological Survey, the latest agency subjected to controls on research that might go against official policy.
Secrecy of Bush administration
New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks. Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff. "This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way," says Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications. "I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow." But the truth is very different. USGS marine biologist Jim Estes says, "I feel as though we've got someone looking over our shoulder at every damn thing we do. And to me that's a very scary thing. I worry that it borders on censorship." Estes continues, "The explanation was that this was intended to ensure the highest possible quality research. But to me it feels like they're doing this to keep us under their thumbs. It seems like they're afraid of science. Our findings could be embarrassing to the administration." The new requirements state that the USGS's communications office must be "alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature." The agency's director, Mark Myers, and its communications office also must be told -- prior to any submission for publication -- "of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed." - The changes amount to an overhaul of commonly accepted procedures for all scientists, not just those in government, based on anonymous peer reviews. In that process, scientists critique each other's findings to determine whether they deserve to be published. From now on, USGS supervisors will demand to see the comments of outside peer reviewers' as well any exchanges between the scientists who are seeking to publish their findings and the reviewers. In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected. Earlier this year, a USGS scientist debunked research that the Interior Department was using in an effort to remove from the endangered species list a tiny jumping mouse that inhabits grasslands coveted by developers in Colorado and Wyoming. Federal criminal investigators are looking into allegations that USGS employees falsified documents between 1998 and 2000 on the the movement of water through the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada. The USGS had validated the Energy Department's conclusions that water seepage was relatively slow, so radiation would be less likely to escape. At the Environmental Protection Agency, scientists and advocacy groups alike are worried about closing libraries that contain tens of thousands of agency documents and research studies. "It now appears that EPA officials are dismantling what it likely one of our country's comprehensive and accessible collections of environmental materials," four Democrats who are in line to head House committees wrote EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson two weeks ago. Democrats about to take control of Congress have investigations into reports by the New York Times and other news organizations that the Bush administration tried to censor government scientists researching global warming at NASA and the Commerce Department. (AP/Yahoo! News)
- December 13: The New York Times's editorial board is "madden[ed]" by "the claims of calm deliberation emerging from the White House this week," writing that the "search for a new plan for Iraq seems to be taking place with as much urgency as the deliberations over a new color for the dollar bill."
Iraq war and occupation
While Baghdad burns, Bush holds "a series of carefully stage-managed meetings with officials and outside experts whose common credential appeared to be their opposition to the recommendations of James Baker's Iraq Study Group." And the White House is telling reporters to wait, not till around Christmas, but until early next year, for any word of Bush's new strategy. Press secretary Tony Snow recently told reporters. "it's a complex business, and there are a lot of things to take into account.... [Bush] wants to make sure it's done right." The Times opines, "We are more than eager for this White House to finally get something right on Iraq. But we find it chilling to imagine that Mr. Bush and his advisers have only now begun a full policy review, months after Iraq plunged into civil war and years after experts began warning that the administration's strategy was not working." - While the Times editors want to believe that Bush's advisors are working to persuade Bush to take up what they call a "sensible" change in course, or that Bush is trying privately to force Iraq's leaders to rein in the sectarian militias and finally begin national reconciliation talks, they are not sanguine. Instead, they write, "[w]e fear that a more likely explanation is that the president's ever-divided policy advisers are still wrangling over the most basic decisions, while his political handlers are waiting for public enthusiasm for the Baker report to flag before Mr. Bush tries to explain why he won't follow through on some of the report's most important and reasonable suggestions -- like imposing a timetable on Iraqi leaders to make political compromises or face a withdrawal of American support. Or trying to persuade Iran and Syria to cease their meddling." The editors acknowledge that the ISG report "is not the received wisdom of the ages. It should have been released far earlier, rather than being delayed to get past the midterm elections. But it was a good-faith effort by people wise enough and experienced enough to know how bad the situation really is in Iraq, and how little time left there is for the president to act." The editors conclude, "Mr. Bush has no more time to waste on 'listening tours' and photo ops. The nation is in a crisis, and Americans need to hear how he plans to unwind the chaos he has unleashed in Iraq. If the president is delaying because he is searching for a good option, he can stop. There are none. But Americans need to see that he is prepared to choose among the undesirable alternatives, and clear the way for a withdrawal of American troops that does not leave even more killing and mayhem behind." (New York Times)
- December 13: The progressive news analysts at Buzzflash are equally angry about Bush's reaction to the ISG report, writing:
Iraq war and occupation
"The Iraq Study Group (ISG) didn't tell George W. Bush what he wanted to hear, so now Bush is doing what any spoiled brat would: he is asking someone else instead in hopes of getting a different answer. For the last few weeks, Bush has been arranging carefully staged meetings with various 'experts,' and all of these folks just happen to share his views on Iraq: boost troops and escalate." Bush first met with five academics and retired generals who all reject the ISG report and want to increase the US presence in Iraq; one, Eliot Cohen, is a professor who wields great influence among neoconservatives and is a protege of Paul Wolfowitz. Cohen is one of those calling the "war on terror" World War III. The Buzzflash editors write, "Leave it to the very people that got us into this quagmire to endorse escalation as a way out. Leave it to Bush to listen to them yet again. The man is trying to dig his way out of his own hole, and he isn't even using a different shovel from the one that got him there to start with." - Conservative columnist Steve Chapman agrees with his liberal counterparts. He writes that the ISG repprt is being attacked by right-wingers who are savaging the report -- among other epithets, calling its authors "surrender monkeys" -- in order to bolster their support for the war and their calls to increase the US presence there. "After all these years of haplessly defending a war that has been a dismal failure, they leaped at the chance to go on the attack," Chapman writes. He gives three examples of many comments currently clogging the discussion: "Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative advocate of the invasion, sneered at the Baker-Hamilton commission for daring to propose negotiations with Iran and Syria. Middle Eastern scholar Fouad Ajami ridiculed its suggestion that we address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Johns Hopkins University professor Eliot Cohen accused the panel of 'sheer fantasy' and said all we need to prevail in Iraq is 'energy and competence in fighting the fight.' Energy and competence from an administration that stumbled into this quagmire with no idea what lay in store? Well, look who's fantasizing. He might as well invite Obi-Wan Kenobi and Princess Leia to join the struggle."
- Chapman finds it hard to believe "that these great thinkers still have the nerve to show themselves in public, much less feign wisdom about how to conduct the war. Three long years ago, Perle airily assured an interviewer that 'we will soon be turning Iraq over to the Iraqis' and that 'they are capable of, with our help, handling their own security.' Ajami predicted that when we invaded, the streets of Iraq would 'erupt in joy.' Last winter, Cohen announced that in Iraq, 'we have the right people at the top and the right policies in effect -- and even more importantly, the right philosophy behind it all.' And they accuse the Iraq Study Group of not having a clue?"
- The ISG report had little chance of creating a "magic formula" for victory and success in Iraq. "Its members don't pretend that our mistakes in Iraq can be undone easily, if they can be undone at all. The panel merely made a game effort to separate the bad options from the worse ones. Any of the panel's 79 recommendations can be derided, but they deserve to be weighed against the alternatives. During the time we've spurned negotiations, Iran and Syria have fomented considerable violence in Iraq, and Tehran has made great progress toward a nuclear arsenal. Maybe we could do worse by talking to them, but it would be hard. And ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- gee, that's worked out swell for everybody, hasn't it? ...Had supporters of the war been right about Iraq, we wouldn't need outside advice. The administration is contemplating disaster partly because it screwed up so many things along the way, but mainly because the invasion was a doomed enterprise from the start. One thing we should have learned from the last century is that people generally detest foreign occupation. Another is that when resistance to occupation flares into full-fledged war or insurgency, the resistance almost always prevails in the end."
- Chapman writes that the Bush administration and its supporters have learned nothing from history. "Look at the French in Algeria, the Americans in Vietnam, the Israelis in Lebanon (in the 1980s and '90s) or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Each had huge advantages in military might, but all failed. The administration and its allies learned nothing from this history. So the United States now finds itself in a familiar dilemma. It can withdraw from Iraq, accepting failure and leaving chaos and civil war behind. Or it can stay and keep spending lives and money in a lost cause that has forfeited public support. Supporters of the war think that's the fault of the public. Former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay complained that what happened in Korea and Vietnam may be happening in Iraq as well: 'Our nation lost the will to fight the war.' But you can hardly expect the people to favor a war that is protracted, costly, launched on mistaken premises and so far unsuccessful -- especially when they were told it would be quick and easy. If the administration lacks public support, that's because the public can no longer believe this war will have a happy ending. On that point, the public is right. The Iraq Study Group can be criticized for not offering a reliable path to victory. But that's like blaming Noah for the flood." (Buzzflash, Chicago Tribune)
- December 13: The same group of writers at Buzzflash make an interesting speculation: the Saudis issued their threat to financially support Sunni insurgents in Iraq if the US withdraws its forces at the behest of the Bush administration.
Iraq war and occupation
They freely admit they have no proof of their speculation, but it seems plausible. The Saudi threat, they write, "sure sounds bad for world security. But it sounds great for the Bush Administration. Saudi Arabia's pledge not to intervene in Iraq is contingent on our presence, so now -- the argument becomes -- we have to stay to avoid an even nastier civil war and increased destabilization across the region." According to the New York Times, one of the reasons Dick Cheney recently visited Saudi ruler Abdullah was to personally receive the threat. Few details of what Abdullah and Cheney discussed are available, but, as Buzzflash observes, "Saudi Arabia has religious ties to the Iraqi Sunnis, and they also score points at home by opposing the US. They would love to get as much of a claim on oil profits as possible, and ties to a favorable Sunni Iraqi government would help. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, needs any excuse it can come up with for why we need to keep troops in Iraq. Many Americans may be persuaded -- perhaps reasonably -- that Saudi intervention in Iraq might be a bad thing, and that we should therefore let the Saudis hold us hostage by staying. The Bush family has very close ties to the Saudi rulers, and such collaboration would not be the first time they tried to help each other out. There is no way to know precisely what was discussed in the Abdullah-Cheney meeting, but we should certainly be suspicious of sudden, secret meetings with Middle Eastern monarchs regarding Iraq, especially when the Bush Administration, Iraq, and oil are involved." (Buzzflash)
- December 14: The Joint Chiefs of Staff, after meeting with Bush and Cheney, have recommended against the "surge" strategy favored by the White House, and is recommending that the US change its main military mission in Iraq from combating insurgents to supporting Iraqi troops and hunting terrorists.
Iraq war and occupation
The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq, but see strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to achieving some degree of stability. They also are pressing for a much greater US effort on economic reconstruction and political reconciliation. General George Casey, the US's top military commander in Iraq, is reviewing a plan to redefine the American military mission there: US troops would be pulled out of Iraqi cities and consolidated at a handful of US bases while day-to-day combat duty would be turned over to the Iraqi army. The recommendations Casey is reviewing to overhaul the military mission were formulated by Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, the outgoing top US ground commander. The plan positions the US military to be able to move swiftly to a new focus on training, one of the key recommendations from several reviews of US strategy. Under the plan developed by Chiarelli's staff, the military would shift about half of its 15 combat brigades away from battling insurgents and sectarian violence and into training Iraqi security forces as soon as the spring of 2007. In northern and western Iraq, US commanders are already moving troops out of combat missions to place them as advisers with lower-level Iraqi army units. - Pentagon chiefs think that there is no purely military solution for Iraq and that, without major progress on the political and economic fronts, the US intervention is simply buying time. They particularly want to see US pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to offer amnesty to Sunni insurgents, approve constitutional amendments promised to the Sunni minority, pass laws to ensure equitable distribution of oil revenue, and modify the ban on members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party taking government positions. The Pentagon chiefs also are urging that any new strategy be sensitive to regional context, particularly the impact of political or military decisions. They are concerned that any decision to effectively throw US support to the Shi'ite majority may lead Sunni governments in the region to take a more active role in supporting Sunni insurgents. But they are also concerned that a crackdown on Iraq's largest Shi'ite militia, the Mahdi Army, may have repercussions on Iran's actions in Iraq. A constant subtext in the meeting yesterday, and in the ongoing White House review, is the Joint Chiefs' growing concern about the erosion of the US military's ability to deal with other crises around the world because of the heavy commitment in Iraq and the stress on troops and equipment. (Washington Post)
- December 14: The chief of the US Army, General Peter Schoomaker, warns that the Army "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.
US military
Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, Schoomaker says he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years. Though he didn't give an exact number, he says it would take significant time and commitment by the nation, noting some 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers could be added per year. Officials also need greater authority to tap into the National Guard and Reserve, long ago set up as a strategic reserve but now needed as an integral part of the nation's deployed forces, Schoomaker tells a commission studying possible changes in those two forces. "Over the last five years, the sustained strategic demand...is placing a strain on the Army's all-volunteer force," Schoomaker tells the commission. "At this pace...we will break the active component" unless reserves can be called up more to help, he says. After the commission hearings, Schoomaker says General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, is looking at several military options for the war, including shifting many troops from combat missions to training Iraqi units. However, Schoomaker says, the military is more interested in getting the Iraqi security forces up to speed than anything. Above all else, the military is looking at "how we generate Iraqi output," he says. The Army in recent days has been looking at how many additional troops could be sent to Iraq, if the president decides a surge in forces would be helpful. But, officials say, only about 10,000 to 15,000 troops could be sent and an end to the war would have to be in sight because it would drain the pool of available soldiers for combat. Further, many experts warn, there is no guarantee a surge would work to settle the violence. "We would not surge without a purpose," Schoomaker says. "And that purpose should be measurable." (AP/Yahoo! News) - December 14: Former Saudi ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a close Bush family friend and the informal tutor on foreign policy for George W. Bush, who is now the chief national security advisor to the Saudi royal family, has advised Dick Cheney and members of his staff that Saudi Arabia would acquiesce and even possibly support US military action against Iran.
War with Iran
The revelation comes as part of the story of tension between Bandar and his successor as ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who resigned as ambassador this week. Turki's resignation hints at a major power struggle between the families of Bandar and Turki, two of the most powerful factions of the Saudi ruling apparatus. Sources confirm that Turki resigned as ambassador not only because of conflicts with Bandar, but because of Bandar's signals that Saudi Arabia would accept American military action against Iran. Cheney is one of the strongest advocates for military strikes against Iran in the Bush administration, a position supported by Bandar. Turki has attempted to chart a more pragmatic course away from the Bush sycophancy demonstrated by Bandar and his associates, particularly his deputy, Rihab Massoud. (AP/Huffington Post) - December 14: Federal judge James Robertson issues a split decision in a case involving the rights of suspected enemy combatant Salim Hamdan, the former driver for Osama bin Laden, and which takes up the provisions of the Military Commissions Act.
Terrorism detainees and "enemy combatants"
Robertson upholds the portion of the law that says foreign prisoners held in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility do not have the right to access to US courts. He rules that the law's denial of that right to over 12 million legal immigrants living in the US is unconstitutional. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that no Constitutional provision or legal precept allows Hamdan not to have access to the US judiciary; in response, the Bush administration worked with Republicans in Congress to draft the MCA. The high court's justices said President Bush had overstepped his power when he created a system of military tribunals for foreign-born alleged terrorists. The MCA allows for just such tribunals, and also denies access to any immigrants, legal or illegal, who are accused by the president of being terrorists or "unlawful combatants." Critics say the provision was written so broadly that it took away legal immigrants' right of habeas corpus, the right that allows people who are arrested and imprisoned to go before a judge and plead for freedom. The incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, says he will subpoena Bush administration officials if they refuse requests for documents and testimony, including two long-sought memos detailing its detention and treatment of terror suspects overseas. One is a presidential order signed by Bush authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency to set up secret prisons outside the United States to house terrorism suspects. The other is a 2002 Justice Department memorandum outlining "aggressive interrogation techniques" that could be used against terror suspects. Both are subjects that came under discussion during the debate over the MCA. "I expect to get the answers. If I don't...then I really think we should subpoena," he says. (seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003476629_detainees14.html) - December 14: The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) says it will take a half million barrels a day off the market beginning in February, cementing its apparent intention to do or say what it takes to keep oil prices around $60 a barrel.
Oil profiteering and the "oiligarchy"
The move will ensure higher gas prices in the US and around the world. OPEC, which pumps a third of the world's crude-oil, helped stabilize falling oil prices back in October when it announced a cut of 1.2 million barrels a day. But expectations of slower economic growth and a non-OPEC supply surge in 2007 means the market is still vulnerable to a price collapse. To prevent that, OPEC is sending a clear signal to the market and energy traders have reacted, sending oil prices up by more than $1 a barrel. Wood Mackenzie oil analyst Ann-Louise Hittle describes OPEC's action as "an aggressive approach" intended to put a floor underneath prices. By delaying the cut until February, however, the cartel is leaving itself a window to change its mind if demand spikes due to a colder-than-expected winter or a stronger economy. Even though the decision doesn't take place until February, consumers are already seeing the effects at the pump and on their energy bills. (AP/Yahoo! News) - December 14: Federal prosecutors are trying to force the American Civil Liberties Union to turn over copies of a classified document it received from a source, using what legal experts call a new extension of the Bush administration's efforts to protect national-security secrets.
Secrecy of Bush administration
The government is using a grand jury subpoena, typically used to uncover evidence, in an attempt to actually confiscate evidence. Such a use of a grand jury subpoena is unprecedented and possibly illegal. The subpoena issued to the ACLU demands "any and all copies" of a document e-mailed to it unsolicited in October, indicating that the government also wants to prevent further dissemination of the information in the document. If successful, the subpoena will grant the federal government wide new constraints on the Constitutional prohibition of prior restraint on publications. The ACLU says the document is unremarkable, and its disclosure would be only mildly embarrassing to the government. It also says that the document "has nothing to do with national defense." Rodney Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond's law school, says, "The government may be wanting to have its cake and eat it, too. It may want to present this to the court as not carrying heavy First Amendment implications. But to the extent the government wants to prevent the ACLU from disclosing the content of the document by virtue of this subpoena, it is a prior restraint." But law professor John Eastman says the move is not improper, and says "the government is bending over backwards to accommodate the ACLU rather than pulling the trigger in prosecuting them. I'm not troubled by the fact that when we're dealing with classified documents there may be action taken to retrieve them." - The ACLU says the subpoena is an effort to chill speech about the Bush administration. "The government is involved in a very conscious effort to suppress its critics," says Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director. The ACLU has filed to block the subpoena, saying, "Many of the most important news articles of the past year (such as those concerning NSA eavesdropping, rendition of foreign prisoners of our nation to other nations, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's views on the deteriorating situation in Iraq, National Security Advisor Hadley's assessment of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, and the report on the Iraq insurgency's funding sources) have been based on classified documents leaked to reporters." (New York Times)
- December 14: Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will push for the creation of a House panel to closely examine US spy agencies' actions and spending, a step recommended by the 9/11 commission in 2004, which found serious flaws in Congress's oversight of US intelligence.
Congressional oversight
She says that such a panel will "protect the American people with the best possible intelligence, recognizing the role that Congress plays in all of this." Under the Republican leadership in the previous Congress, there was little or no Congressional oversight of US intelligence agencies. The proposed Select Intelligence Oversight Panel would be part of the powerful Appropriations Committee and would draw its membership from that spending committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Through a series of hearings, it would examine Bush's intelligence budget, prepare the classified details to the annual defense spending bill and conduct oversight of the use of appropriated funds by intelligence agencies. A Democratic member of the commission, former Representative Timothy Roemer, says the change would achieve the commission's two major goals: forcing spy agencies to disclose more to Congress, which they often have ignored, and linking the expanded oversight to the power of the purse. "This is a major step forward in terms of correcting some of the dysfunction on Capitol Hill," Roemer says. - Republicans are much less receptive. Thomas Kean, the Republican chairman of the commission, says that the plan might be helpful, but "[i]t depends very much who the chairman is and who the members are." Republican Minority Leader John Boehner merely says, "I appreciate the incoming speaker's efforts to reach out to Republicans in hopes of continuing to improve congressional oversight of America's intelligence systems."
- The proposal is one of six Pelosi outlines as priorities for the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress that convenes in January. The others are ethics and lobbying overhaul; raising the federal minimum wage; cutting interest rates on student loans; making health care more affordable; and cutting subsidies to the oil industry. The classified nature of intelligence spending creates risks that improper spending will go undetected. That became apparent this year when Republican Randy Cunningham was convicted of taking bribes in return for using classified legislation to steer government contracts to favored companies. Cunningham was a member of both the intelligence and appropriations committees. (AP/Yahoo! News)
- December 14: Veteran Republican senator Thad Cochran may be the next lawmaker to come under scrutiny for his dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Jack Abramoff scandal
Cochran, a powerful Republican who until this year controlled the Senate Appropriations Committee and steered billions of federal dollars, is called in one e-mail from an Abramoff lobbyist the man who had "never said no." One of Abramoff's contracts was to represent the Choctaw Indians in Cochran's home state of Mississippi. (See earlier entries for how systematically Abramoff and his firm looted the various Indian tribes he pretended to represent.) In the e-mail, obtained by watchdog site TPM Muckraker, one of Abramoff's lobbyists made a strong pitch for contributions to Cochran in the midst of his 2002 re-election campaign because "Sen. Cochran's office [had] never said 'no'" to the Mississippi Choctaw, the casino-owning tribe that was one of Abramoff's prime clients since the beginning of his lobbying career. "[W]e have been hitting them up for projects almost everyday [sic] the last couple of months," Abramoff associate Todd Boulanger wrote of Cochran's office. Abramoff and his associates had already donated thousands to Cochran's campaign committee at the time of the email. That was "good," Boulanger allowed, "but not good enough for the member who keeps the lights turned on here at Greenberg,." referring to Abramoff's law firm, Greenberg Traurig. The Choctaw paid Abramoff and his firm millions of dollars per year for his services. "I know it's pricey," Boulanger concluded, "but nobody comes even close (except for Doolittle, maybe) to doing as much for our main clients as Senator Cochran." Boulanger is referring to House member and fellow Republican John Doolittle. After the e-mail, which called for contributions from Abramoff's team members and clients, they contributed thousands of dollars to Cochran's leadership political committee, The Senate Victory Fund. - Fred Wertheimer, the Executive Director of government watchdog Democracy 21, observes that the e-mail provides a very "non-subtle" glimpse into Abramoff's lobbying tactics. Abramoff's team "believed that...the key to their ability to function in Congress was to provide substantial sums of money to members they were trying to influence." Abramoff, his associates and clients delivered $18,500 to Cochran's leadership PAC following the e-mail, just a fraction of the $69,000 that Abramoff, his associates and clients contributed to Cochran's various committees since 2000. Cochran's office denies any knowedge of any dealings with Abramoff. But Cochran was a staunch benefactor of Abramoff's clients. In 2001, for instance, Cochran helped to set aside $16.3 million in federal funds for the Mississippi Choctaw to build a jail. The Justice Department objected to the appropriation, arguing that the Choctaw, a very wealthy tribe, didn't need the funds. Only appoximately $9 million would be released. Abramoff panicked, fearing that he'd lose one of his rainmaking clients: "We MUST stop this. This would be SUCH a HUGE embarrassment," he wrote in a March 2001 email. That November, shortly after one of Abramoff's colleagues wrote in an e-mail about the need for a statement on the Senate floor reiterating that the jail project should be fully-funded, Cochran made such a statement. After Cochran's speech, and other lobbying efforts by White House officials Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove, Abramoff got his way and all of the funds were released.
- In 1997, according to author Peter Stone, Cochran, at Abramoff's behest, inserted language into an appropriations bill that exempted the Choctaw from regulatory scrutiny by the National Indian Gaming Commission. Cochran's legislative maneuver also allowed the Mississippi tribe to avoid the fees that the gaming body levied on other tribes, which saved the Choctaws about $180,000 a year. (TPM Muckraker)
